PHADA Encourages You to Submit Using the Sample Comments Provided Below
HUD has posted a proposed rescission of its notice requiring public housing and HUD Multifamily housing owners to provide at least 30 days of notice prior to initiating legal action for possession (eviction) for non-payment of rent, and has opened a public comment period on the proposed rescission. Members are encouraged to submit individualized comments in support of the proposed rescission of the rule.
Background
Michael Desmond’s 2016 book, Evicted: Poverty and Profit in an American City, brought significant attention to the social and economic challenges evictions cause for tenants, landlords, and society. This attention increased exponentially with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Widespread loss of income due to business shutdowns, and high contagion of the disease with rapid spread in congregate settings, led to eviction moratoriums and other steps at all levels of government to reduce evictions. These efforts included a provision in the CARES Act requiring a 30-day notice prior to eviction for non-payment of rent in all HUD-assisted housing.
In 2021, HUD issued an interim final rule specific to the public housing and Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA, often referred to as HUD Multifamily Housing) programs. This rule required a 30-day notice and added requirements about what should be included in the notices. PHADA submitted comments opposing the interim final rule as unnecessary, as an ineffective means to reduce evictions, as having a detrimental effect on housing authorities’ Tenant Account Receivables (TARs), and as unfairly applying only to public housing and PBRA but not to other HUD rental assistance programs.
In 2023, HUD issued a proposed final rule, substantially the same as the interim final rule. PHADA again submitted comments opposing the rule for the same reasons as cited in 2021, primarily that the rule would not help achieve the goal of reducing evictions. These comments went further, noting that:
- Increased past-due balances that can result from extended notice periods hurt tenants and would exacerbate challenges to housing authority finances
- HUD’s cited research did not show that an extended notice period would (by itself) reduce evictions
- Contrary to HUD’s claims, the rule would not simplify eviction rules for tenants but would in fact complicate them by creating additional variations of rules on the eviction process within the local governing jurisdiction.
Despite strenuous objections from PHADA and many others, HUD went forward and implemented the final rule in 2024.
In addition, by this time, the national public health emergency had ended, but HUD and several state courts determined that the 30-day notice requirement in the CARES Act remained in effect and was not dependent upon the national emergency. Once HUD had finalized the rule, it would remain in effect even if the CARES Act provision were repealed.
Current Status of the 30-Day-Notice Rule
HUD has proposed rescinding the 2024 final rule, including the 30-day notice requirements and the added notice content requirements that are a part of the final rule. PHADA encourages members to submit comments in support of removing the rule. While rescission of the rule will not remove the 30-day notice requirement of the CARES Act, it will remove the detailed notice content requirements of the final rule, and should the CARES Act provision be repealed, would then allow agencies to modify policies to conform with local law and prior regulations.
Sample Comments on Proposed 30-Day-Notice Requirement for Legal Action in Cases of Non-Payment of Rent
When preparing comments, it is important to include specific statistics or examples from your agency whenever possible. The use of AI will likely increase HUD’s scanning for duplicate language in order to condense the number of comments they must respond to, making individualized comments even more important.
Below is a sample introductory paragraph and possible points to make in your own comments:
. . . . .
The (Housing Authority) submits these comments in regard to the proposed rule removing the requirement to provide 30-day notice of non-payment of rent before initiating legal action.
-
The rule has not effectively prevented evictions (describe your local experience regarding evictions, what has helped, how this rule has not helped, etc.)
-
The rule has had negative impacts on renters who cannot pay, their neighbors who do, and households on the waiting list (provide specific local examples if possible).
-
The rule has had negative impacts on the Housing Authority (describe those impacts—increased TARs, lower PHAS FASS scores, reduced resources for maintenance and/or unit turnover, etc.).
Specifically, based on our experience, longer notice periods for non-payment do not reduce evictions but instead result in:
-
Higher rent arrears for households, which are harder to cure, have a negative impact on tenants’ future housing opportunities.
-
Higher levels of unpaid rent agency-wide, which is lost essential operating revenue not covered by HUD. This has led to reduced administrative and maintenance services for all tenants and threatens our agency’s financial solvency, negatively impacting our PHAS scoring.
Our agency would also highlight the following points:
-
The rule applies only to public housing and project-based rental assistance, but not to vouchers or any other rental units in the market, creating more confusion for tenants, not less.
-
In most cases, an initial filing does not result in an eviction and may be the only way to convince a tenant that they must pay their portion of rent. Our agency always provides information and works with tenants to avoid eviction for non-payment.
-
The tenants at our agency know how to contact us if they have a change in income, and we process interim recertifications expeditiously and do not take eviction action in such cases.
-
With limited administrative funding and substantial regulatory and compliance demands, our agency does not have the resources to engage in more substantial eviction prevention interventions with tenants.
-
HUD grades public housing authorities on their ability to collect rent, rewarding those with higher rent collections and punishing those with lower rent collections. Limiting the tools agencies can use to collect the rent under governing state and local law undermines our agency’s ability to meet this requirement and sends a confusing message.
-
TARs are a problem of great concern at our agency, threatening our ability to function and provide housing for low-income households.
-
For more ideas, view PHADA’s full comments on the 2023 proposed final rule here.
. . . . .
Comments from practitioners carry weight. Please share with HUD how this has negatively impacted your agency and tenants!